> is there really any proof of greater human mortality after AHB arrival?

I don't have a clear and compelling smoking gun, as
this would require state-by-state data that I have yet
to find, but here's a summary of the best data I could
find on the issue:

http://bee-quick.com/reprints/stingdeath.pdf
(from the 09/05 issue of Bee Culture)

Which show a lower rate of sting deaths in Canada,
which clearly has no AHB problem.

(Theories that Canadians are faster runners,
are smarter and would not spray colonies of bees
with cans of Raid, and so on are equally possible
explanations for the difference in per capita
deaths.)

To be honest, we simply don't have enough deaths to
make any valid (statistically significant) conclusions
about the fraction that is known to be due to AHB versus
the fraction that MIGHT be AHB, but might just as easily
be due to yellow jackets.  Post-mortems rarely include
the identification of the specific type of stinging
insect that caused the death.

And yeah, they made a typo in the article, which I have yet
to  tweak in my copy of the final pdf. The chart heading
"more risk of death than from stings?" should read
"How many times more risk of death than from stings?"

On the other hand, this guy, one who would seem to be
motivated to "hype" the problem as much as possible,
as he hawks a line of cheap veils for first responders,
can only claim 15 "confirmed deaths" in the USA from AHB
defensive stinging incidents since day one:
http://www.stingshield.com/chron.htm

He does have some nice maps, though:
http://www.stingshield.com/all-us.htm



                jim

-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and  other info ---